• Apr 21st 2010 at 11:00AM
  • 33
Consumers have an opportunity to be more environmentally conscious as new hybrid and electric vehicles continue to reach the market. Despite the convenience of tried-and-true gas-powered cars, they affect the environment with their harmful emissions. Here is some data to show you just how much, so maybe you'll consider a greener vehicle for your next purchase.

[Source: Auto Insurance for AutoblogGreen.com]


EMBED THE IMAGE ABOVE ON YOUR SITE

[Source: Auto Insurance for AutoblogGreen.com]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 33 Comments
      • 5 Years Ago
      Seriously, I stopped reading at cubic lbs!
      Author either needs some science education or a decent editor!
      Credibility shot!
      • 5 Years Ago
      I've damn near 240 trees in my back yard (cut down a few this weekend though). I guess that makes me carbon neutral.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I only replied so this would be on the first page :D (the last one is lots of fun)

        Earth Day Predictions, 1970
        "We have about five more years at the outside to do something."
        • Kenneth Watt, ecologist

        "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."
        • George Wald, Harvard Biologist

        "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation."
        • Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

        "Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction."
        • New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

        "Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years."
        • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

        "By...[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s."
        • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

        "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation."
        • Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

        "Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions....By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine."
        • Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

        "Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support...the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution...by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...."
        • Life Magazine, January 1970

        "At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable."
        • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

        "Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone."
        • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

        "We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones."
        • Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

        "By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate...that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, `I am very sorry, there isn't any.'"
        • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

        "Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
        • Sen. Gaylord Nelson

        "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."
        • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
      harlanx6
      • 5 Years Ago
      How many cars do we need to buy to offset all those dam trees?
        • 5 Years Ago
        @harlanx6
        Harlanx6,
        Again, a population increase of 6 Billion ( with a B ) people in 200 years.
        An industrial explosion that covers the Globe.

        But you stick with your little theory the world doesn't change.
        • 5 Years Ago
        @harlanx6
        So, since my dad is a tree farmer I can drive my lifted Jeep guilt free, right?
        harlanx6
        • 5 Years Ago
        @harlanx6
        Ernie that sounds like a bunch of hand wringing, sky is falling crap to me, but I'll bet there are a bunch of ABG readers that will swallow it whole!
        I don't.
        • 5 Years Ago
        @harlanx6
        Its a valid point from ernie. The worlds forests have been decimated. 50,000 to 170,000 square kilometers of forest are lost per year, in the past 30 years thats a hell of a lot of land.
        The loss of trees contributes to environmental problems such as flooding,drought,desertification, non fertile land not to mention the loss of bio diversity. The very fact that we're polluting more yet reducing the amount of trees will be a recipee for disaster, take the easter islands as an example.
        • 5 Years Ago
        @harlanx6
        Oh don't worry about that, we're harvesting *them* as quickly as we can.

        For reference, the world has half the forest it did in the 15th century. So the problem isn't *just* that we're polluting too much, it's that we don't have the trees needed to support life on the planet in the long term.
      • 5 Years Ago
      what's a "cubic pound"?
        • 5 Years Ago
        "1 cubic pound = 0.093324833 kg3"

        That's no less confusing.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I just did a google search for "cubic pound" (with the quotes). The first link was this ABG article. There's a circular definition for ya.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Oh, a cubic pound is what you get when you make a perfect cube, one pound on each side. So it's nine pounds in total. ;)
        • 5 Years Ago
        According to Google:
        1 cubic pound = 0.093324833 kg3

        According to me:
        Something you get when you screw up your units of measure

        Also, what age and type of tree are we talking about? Are we talking Southern Yellow Pine, Magnolia, Dogwood, Marijuana, Douglas Fir? I can plant lots of tiny trees every year if that will help. Plus, I know a few guys that grow trees in their basement/closet... and let me tell ya, they're offsetting a lot of cars (just kidding, sortof).

        Anyway, I'm going to need a little more convincing before this "data" holds water with me.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Bring on the hybrids. I drove a prius the other day. It is somewhat boring to drive, but it gets you to point a or b on much less gas. Donating your car to charities is another good way to help the environment. Instead of giving the car to a salvage yard, donate your car to a reputable car donation organization.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Even better than donating them to charity is to donate them to a homeless person to live in. Sure, it's no Hilton, but it's still a roof over their head. Even if the car doesn't run, it still is a pretty nice place to stretch out and sleep.
        Get a few homeless folks together, take them out behind a Walmart somewhere and drop off a bunch of cars. I guarantee when you come back in a year or so, the will have a whole shanty town community. It will probably be nicer than a trailer park, and they may even have started a representative government. Everybody wins.
        • 5 Years Ago
        The biggest problem with driving a hybrid is being judged by everyone around you. They know you only do it to feel good about yourself. They know you don't have a lot of friends and being the trendy person feels good. You think of yourself like a Hollywood celebrity, adopting cats instead of children, doing good.

        The rest of us know that It does not take a rocket scientist to know that your cell phone batteries go bad every few years, and all those batteries in your hybrid will go bad too. Then you are polluting more than I am in my "dont need to feel good about myself hummer"
        • 5 Years Ago
        haha, your idea was debunked one year ago.
        Still the "right" wing regurgitates it over and over and over...
      • 5 Years Ago
      This article explains and confirms what I have been posting for quite a while. North America in a Net carbon SINK.

      North America, north of 51 degrees N, absorbs and sequesters every molecule of CO2 its emits into the atmosphere and some more from around the world. This was confirmed by a series of experimental measurements conducted at Princeton University and that resulted in a score of peer reviewed scientific published papers. The papers were never disputed nor refuted, but have been simply ignored.

      How? By the means described in this very article. It has set-aside land for National Wilderness, National Forests, National Grasslands, and Private ranch land, farms and Silviculture. A private managed forest is actually much better as a sequester for CO2, than an "mature old Growth forest. Trees harvested for paper and lumber, are replaced with rapidly growing new growth, that absorbs lots of CO2. "Old growth" forests in contrast, are relatively stable, adding little net growth, and so are minimal in their effects in sequestering CO2. That is why the North American private forests sequester much more atmospheric CO2 than the Amazon rain-forest.

      There is so much of such land, that on net, North America has become a NET Carbon Sink, despite our advanced industrial lifestyle. So the next time someone demands we sacrifice and cut back a certain artificial percentage or that percentage of CO2 emissions, ask the simple question... Why? On what basis do you demand this artificial number? North America is already BELOW ZERO, and growing so more each year now.

      If Europe and Asia are Net carbon Sources, why should they not make the same sacrifices that we have already made?

      Let them sacrifice and establish similar forests and preserves; and eschew the economic rewards for doing so. There is plenty of economically attractive land in the sacrifices, that we have made for land set-asides, too.

      What do you think the economic value of Central Park in Manhattan is, were it to be available for building skyscrapers? The same applies to the Fens in Boston, or Grant's Park in Chicago, or other such land set-aside all across North America.

      Unlike the rest of the World, we have both started and finished our sacrifices to sequester CO2; and provide psychic satisfaction to ourselves and to provide Wilderness for flora and wildlife to flourish.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I live in Alabama, and I totally agree. Actually, my family offsets several hundred (if not thousand) people worth of CO2 with our trees. It just so happens that we grow pine trees for lumber and paper, and also hunt the land. We have a very small plot when compared to the commercial outfits in this state, and the amount of forest in Alabama is mind boggling. I'm sure that places like Atlanta, Los Angeles, and New York City produce far more carbon than is absorbed in their metropolitan area, but when you account for the millions of square miles of forest in the US there's no doubt in my mind we're carbon negative. Add to that all of the crops and grasslands and it's hard to argue that we burn enough oil to make a dent.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I noticed that you say "North America" and not "The United States." That's because Canada is HUGE (second in area only to Russia) and only has 30 million people while the US has 300+ million people. And north of 51 degrees N is all Canada except for Alaska.

        So...your argument is BS because nearly all of the carbon sink benefit of North America comes from Canada while nearly all of the pollution comes from the US. So yes, the US should make a larger effort to conserve energy and pollute less considering that the use of oil/energy (and respective pollution) is wildly out of proportion to the population.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Whoa, whoa, whoa- there you go with the logic and well-researched argument. We don't want any of that here!!!! The sky is falling!!! They sky is falling!!!
        • 5 Years Ago
        Stan, I would love to see a link to an article on that study.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Lost me at "cubic pounds".
      • 5 Years Ago
      So a cube now has 9 faces?
      • 5 Years Ago
      You guys are reading too much into the "info" on the infographic. Be wowwed by it's bright colors! Love it's artistic focus! Just believe what it says- anything on the internets that is pretty must be true!!
      • 5 Years Ago
      Oh wow, most impressive indeed. Well done dude.

      Lou
      www.ultimate-privacy.at.tc
      • 5 Years Ago
      • 5 Years Ago
      So, according to the math here:
      4 tons of CO2 emitted, EPA rates CO2 emissions at 2421 grams per gallon. Create 4 tons of CO2, you would need to consume 1498 gallons of gas. Even at 20 mpg, that would take you just under 30,000 miles a year. Don't most American drivers average just over 12,000 per year? I guess if everyone just idles their car when they are not driving your math may just work.

        • 5 Years Ago
        Um-- I'd appreciate it if you kept your math to yourself and allowed us to wallow in mass hysteria... Thanks.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Niagara Falls is not all that close the St. Lawrence, but we would love to have an event of the magnitude here anyway.
    • Load More Comments